1983 (8) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of `Bare Aluminium Wires' measuring 10 SWG or less under the Central Excise Tariff - whether under Tariff Item 33B (II) or Tariff Item No. 68.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Show Cause Notices:
The appellants, manufacturers of AA/ACSR conductors, drew bare aluminium wires measuring less than 10 SWG from duty paid aluminium rods. Central Excise authorities issued Show Cause Notices demanding payment for the period 1-9-1980 to 31-12-1980 and 1-11-1981 to 30-5-1981, totaling a significant amount. The appellants contended that such wires do not attract Central Excise duty, leading to a dispute.

2. Appellate Process:
The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Appellate Collector, stating that redrawn wires fall under T.I. 33B(II) and without an exemption, duty is applicable even if wires are captively consumed. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, filed Revision applications that were now being heard as appeals.

3. Contentions and Submissions:
During the appeals, the consultant for the appellants highlighted the confusion regarding the classification of bare aluminium wires finer than 10 SWG. Various circulars and notifications were referred to, indicating differing classifications under Tariff Item 33B and Tariff Item 68. The consultant argued that the wires should be classified under T.I. 68 to avail relevant exemptions.

4. Respondent's Position:
The respondent contended that lower authorities' orders were correct, but when confronted with Tariff Advice, mentioned it not being binding on the Tribunal.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that while Tariff Advice may not bind them, it is binding on the respondent and the Department. Considering the nature of the wires and the Tariff Advice, the Tribunal concluded that wires under 10 SWG do not fall under T.I. 33B but should be classified under T.I. 68, aligning with available legal exemptions. Consequently, the demands were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, ruling in favor of the appellants.